Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants are operating sexual traffic establishments with the trade name called D from 601 to 601 in the event of Gyeonggi ethicization.

Between October 6, 2015 and March 23, 2016, Defendants conspired to arrange commercial sex acts by having female employees engage in the act of similarity between bucks and bucks by receiving 80,000 won from male customers in the said business establishment by using 80,000 won from male customers, and allowing female employees to engage in the act of similarity between bucks and bucks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of the police against E or F;

1. Business registration certificate and on-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (calculated an additional collection charge);

1. Article 19 (2) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc. concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and selection of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic [the scope of recommendation] is that there is no person who has been sentenced to special sentencing [the person subject to sentencing] in the basic area (six months to one year and four months) (in the case of Defendant B]. In the case of Defendant B, he was sentenced to a fine on July 29, 2015, on the ground of the fact that he arranged sexual traffic from September 19, 2014 to May 8, 2015 at the same place, which was sentenced to a fine on July 29, 2015, even if he was sentenced twice to a fine on the same kind of crime, but again, the crime of this case is not likely to be committed, and in the case of Defendant A, it seems that he was actually engaged in the business at the same place while knowing such circumstances.

It is decided as per the disposition in consideration of all the reasons for sentencing, including the judgment.